WAR IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

THE DISCOURSE OF WAR
consistent way that we have to assume they had clearly defined concepts and
principles. The right of conquest is unequivocally mentioned in the protocol
of an arbitration of Magnesia on the Maeander between the Cretan
cities of Hierapytna and Itanos in 112 BC (Ager 1996: no. 158 II). Before
the judges gave their verdict, they provided a theoretical statement about
the arguments that can be used to support a claim of ownership (kyrieia)
over land: “Men have proprietary rights over land either because they have
received the land themselves from their ancestors, or because they have
bought it for money, or because they have won it by the spear, or because
they have received it from someone of the mightier.” There is much earlier
evidence for this principle, of which Alexander the Great and the Successors
made very liberal use. It is, however, necessary to make certain modifications,
since the Hellenistic evidence shows that the right of conquest did
not apply unconditionally.
Property is subject to changes by different means: purchase, conquest,
donation, and inheritance. Although it is always evident who possesses a
piece of property, it is far more difficult to determine who has a legitimate
claim on it, precisely because of the many – and at least in theory mutually
exclusive – means of acquisition of property. The question “who is the
legitimate owner of a territory” very much depends on the terminus a quo,
in other words on the historical moment which had been determined as the
basis for the discussion (Marshall 1980: 648–9; Scuderi 1991; Chaniotis
2004d). Therefore, the question asked in the Hellenistic period in property
conflicts was: “who was the lawful owner of a territory in a given historical
moment and did the territory change hands in a lawful manner?” This is
the legal background of the negotiations between Antiochos III and the
Romans in 196 BC. The Romans asked Antiochos to retire from the cities
previously subject to Philip V, who had been defeated by them in 197.
According to Polybios (18.49–51), the Roman envoy argued: “It was a
ridiculous thing that Antiochos should come in when all was over and take
the prizes they had gained in their war with Philip.” When the Romans
raised a claim on these areas because of their victory over Philip, Antiochos
did not question the principle itself, but moved the terminus a quo further
into the past, saying that another, earlier, act of violence had established his
claim – the victory of his ancestor, Seleukos I, in 281 BC. Again, Polybios
summarizes his argument (18.51.3–6):
He said that he had crossed to Europe with his army in order to recover
the area of Chersonesos and the cities of Thrace, for the sovereignty [arche]
of these places belonged to him more than to anyone else. Originally, these
areas were under the rule of Lysimachos, but when Seleukos went to war with
him and defeated him, he won the entire kingdom of Lysimachos by spear
[doriktetos genesthai]. But in the following years, when his ancestors had their
attention deflected elsewhere, first Ptolemy captured and appropriated them
182